What did you expect? Look at the author's name, Joe Mangano. If you do a google search you'll find lots of articles that he has authored where the nuclear power industry is to blame for all sorts of things. I bet that if the weather drastically changed, tomorrow, he'll publish an article about the nuclear power industry has caused the change - if he hasn't already written such an article

What I am really disappointed with is the journal publishing the article in the first place. It used to be that such journals were the authoritative "goto sources" for information, because they are refereed, so you know that the article has been reviewed by knowledgeable people in the industry, before being accepted for publication. I guess that's not the case any more, because if it was, they would have caught the lies (or stretching of the truth, as some might call it). Too bad

John HG wrote:What did you expect? Look at the author's name, Joe Mangano. If you do a google search you'll find lots of articles that he has authored where the nuclear power industry is to blame for all sorts of things. I bet that if the weather drastically changed, tomorrow, he'll publish an article about the nuclear power industry has caused the change - if he hasn't already written such an article

Oh come on. Just because one doesn't agree with you, or your opinion, it doesn't make them wrong! I read the report and it doesn't sound like they made things up.

John HGl wrote:
What did you expect? Look at the author's name, Joe Mangano. If you do a google search you'll find lots of articles that he has authored where the nuclear power industry is to blame for all sorts of things. I bet that if the weather drastically changed, tomorrow, he'll publish an article about the nuclear power industry has caused the change - if he hasn't already written such an article

Oh come on. Just because one doesn't agree with you, or your opinion, it doesn't make them wrong! I read the report and it doesn't sound like they made things up.

It has nothing to do with anyone agreeing with my opinion! We are not talking about opinions here, we are talking about real data and the science of analyzing such data. And, I am not the one discrediting the author(s), look at the referenced Scientific American article and judge for yourself!

Just because someone has a degree and can write a study that "sounds" important, it doesn't make it true! I am sure we are all familiar with Dr. Wakefield's study from the UK about autism and vaccines. It was reviewed and published in one of the most prestigious journals in the world, only to be renounced by 10 out of its 13 authors and eventually retracted by Lancet. The problem is that the damage that was done by the study, where they falsified the data, will take MANY years to be undone. I guess what I'm saying is that just because a study is published by a respectable journal it doesn't make it "absolutely" true/correct.